Calder View Surgery Also known as Calder View Surgery

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We have rated the practice as good for providing effective services as care was based on latest evidence and good practice and patients were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff worked with all agencies involved in patients’ care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure patients understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff took account of people’s communication, personal and health needs.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The practice made sure patients’ care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Reception staff used digital flags within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator to be present. From a selection of patient records reviewed, we saw that overall patient consultations contained appropriate information and demonstrated that care and treatment was being delivered in a safe way.

The practice planned and delivered patients’ care and treatment in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Clinical guidance and updates were discussed in clinical meetings and in practice protected time.

As part of our assessment, a CQC GP specialist advisor (SpA) conducted a series of remote clinical searches of patient records to assess the practice’s procedures around the management of patients with long-term conditions. For example, asthma, chronic kidney disease, diabetes and hypothyroidism. We found the practice had good management of these patients and from a selection of patient records reviewed, we saw that overall patient consultations contained appropriate information and demonstrated that care and treatment was being delivered in a safe way.

The practice worked well across teams and services to support patients. Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver care, treatment, and support. We saw there were systems and processes in place to ensure care was delivered and reviewed in a coordinated way which included those with a learning disability. There were regular documented multi-disciplinary team meetings.

The practice supported patients to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff told us they were committed to promoting and encouraging patients to live heathier lives. They told us they used consultations to opportunistically discuss health choices and provide supporting information. This included encouraging patients to attend health checks and reviews and signposting to support groups and self-help advice. Staff told us they supported national health priorities, initiatives and screening programmes to improve the population’s health, for example, breast and bowel screening. We saw the practice website had links to health and wellbeing information.

The practice routinely monitored patient care and treatment to continuously improve it. We saw that the practice had a programme of quality improvement, including clinical and non-clinical audits, to drive improvements in care and treatment. There were patient registers in place, for example, those with a long-term condition. The practice operated a recall system to ensure patients were offered appropriate health assessments and checks. Patients with co-morbidities were seen at one appointment. The practice had systems in place to follow-up those patients who did not attend.

Validated data available for this assessment for the period up to end of March 2024 showed that uptake for childhood immunisations for 1, 2 and 5-year-olds ranged from 84.6% to 90.0%. Clinicians we spoke with told us they followed-up on non-attendance and promoted uptake in consultations.

Validated data for the uptake of cervical screening for the period up to June 2024 for the age group 25 to 49 years was 70.8% and for the age group 50 to 64 years was 82.5%. The practice had systems in place to promote national cancer screening programmes and actively followed-up on non-attendance. The practice had planned some patient awareness sessions in conjunction with the local Cancer Alliance team.

Clinicians understood the requirements of legislation and guidance around people’s consent to care and treatment, including the assessment of a person’s mental capacity to make a decision. When needed, clinicians supported patients and involved their families, carers and other professionals to make decisions in the person’s best interests, including decisions about Do Not Attempt Cardio- Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR). We reviewed 2 patient records and saw evidence of the patient and their relatives being involved in end-of-life care discussions. We saw Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) care plans were used to record patient wishes regarding care and resuscitation and these were stored in the clinical records. We saw clinical staff had undertaken DNACPR/ReSPECT training.

Records showed that staff had undertaken Mental Capacity Act (MCA), Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and Consent training. Staff were aware of the need to request consent to share records in line with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) principles.